Why does the entertainment industry like to wade in such shallow waters? Check out www.hardees.com (Carl's Jr. for you west coast folks). The front page promotes their new Paris Hilton commercial. Click on the link and watch the 60 sec. version, as well as the corporate commentary. It absolutely sickens me to see this utter worthless crap that the industry loves to shovel. I love the moron that says something like, "we had a spicy/hot burger so we immediately though of Paris (Hilton)." Whatever happened to originality, style, tact? You may not agree with me, but I for one believe these people should be dragged out into the streets of Hollywood or Madison Ave. and publically beaten with a cane! What a load of filth.
:banghead:

malcolmvexxed

05-25-2005, 01:31 AM

Well I like women so i have no problem with over the top sensuality. Unfortunately I find her hideous, overly skinny, she has no curves and to be honest I think she has the face of a muppet. But I'm all for gratuity with women I actually like. A couple of points also.

1)If you look for meaning in your commercials, stop. Even the ones with 'sentiment' are faking it at the recommendation of advertising firms to sell something. That's all commercials are and frankly it's all they should EVER be. I get annoyed just from the 'more you know' commercials. It's not my source for moral guidance.

2)All of these kinds of industries are to a large extent reacting to the public. IF we were not sex and violence driven it wouldn't work, but it does, so the blame is shared by people who respond to it. IF somebody decides he likes carl's jr burgers cause of that commercial he's probably beyond the help of ANY form of advertising.

Kirt

05-25-2005, 01:59 AM

Carl's Jr. hasn't produced a meaningful commercial in years. I see their advertizing on TV quite frequently and none of the ads make me want to go get a burger.

They all just make me want to throw up. Prior to the Paris Hilton bit, it was the "horrible table manners" spots. I really don't see how watching someone slurp, slobber, drip and drool while eating can make you hungry. :vomit:

I see the Paris Hilton commercial now and think ... this is all that she'll ever be remembered for. Apparently, you don't need any notable skill or talent to make it in the entertainment industry other than the ability to shake your butt and flash your cleavage.

A good looking body seems to be unimportant as well. :vomit:

brudney

05-25-2005, 11:49 AM

I see the Paris Hilton commercial now and think ... this is all that she'll ever be remembered for.

all she'll be remembered for is her sex video tape i guess... :D :rolleyes:

Joe Burnham

05-27-2005, 04:19 AM

Personally...if I need motivation to go get a burger, I won't need to get it from a commercial. I'll get it from HUNGER. I don't care what they promote or condone. I need to eat, and sometimes, it's the closest and most convenient option.

Commercials are pointless, if you ask me. They've become the new information medium for stations to sell one of their many "brilliant" reality shows. And it's not like a commercial has ever influenced me so much that I actually bought the damn product. By God, I'm an individual who's able to think for myself and form MY OWN opinions! YAY! I'll get what I need, simple as that.

And for those of you who get offended by commercials showing a beast-whore eating a crap burger beside a pointless vehicle, it's a 30 second commercial...Get over it, it's NOT hard, and live your life. OR, you can allow those 30 seconds (evidently BRIMMING with emotional trauma and personal torment that somehow justifies taking time to make a thread about it) to dictate your life and continue to be hurt by inconsequential media bullshit. Oh, the pain!

lanedaughtry

05-27-2005, 05:39 AM

Sex sells.

Who are we to argue?

-L

jscheel

05-27-2005, 06:08 AM

And for those of you who get offended by commercials showing a beast-whore eating a crap burger beside a pointless vehicle, it's a 30 second commercial...Get over it, it's NOT hard, and live your life. OR, you can allow those 30 seconds (evidently BRIMMING with emotional trauma and personal torment that somehow justifies taking time to make a thread about it) to dictate your life and continue to be hurt by inconsequential media bullshit. Oh, the pain!

Whoa there... That is the very problem with media today: nobody cares. Only when people care does anything get done. You act like nothing is wrong, but I see several serious problems, ranging from loss of creativity to absolute moral depravity, Issues must be handled, not ignored.

erik2003

05-27-2005, 07:10 AM

I'm sorry but regardless of the ethical/moral issues apparent i just think this commercial is CRAP. The only reason they made it with paris hilton is so that people would at least talk about it. Unfortunately, nobody talks about the burger, everyone talks about the girl. Or maybe the car. But not about the burger.

They could have made a simple commercial for 10% of the budget that would have made a lot more impact on their burger sales imo. Look at mcdonalds -- you always know what the commercial is about, it is cheap, it is simple and it focuses on the product.

I never recognized a bigger hype around a young women whose dullness is unreachable for the next hundred years. But worse is the fact the surrounding wants to see such people.

There are uncountable of inteligent beauties around the world worth looking at. I better keep watching them.

fahrija

scrimski

05-27-2005, 02:22 PM

I second that. The only talent this Barbie-impersonation has is the money of her family.

Panem et circenses.

Steyn

05-27-2005, 02:42 PM

Hey, hey, hey, watch what you say about Barbie, she's got more class in her plastic pinky than Paris could get in a lifetime.

scrimski

05-27-2005, 02:45 PM

Ken, is that you?

Sorry, didn't meant to say smth bad about Barbie, you're right I think.

Paris Hilton always makes me act like my avatar.

Lordiego01

05-27-2005, 03:16 PM

that was quite tasteless..

I liked the.... spray on the screen...

:rolleyes:

malcolmvexxed

05-27-2005, 03:49 PM

Whoa there... That is the very problem with media today: nobody cares. Only when people care does anything get done. You act like nothing is wrong, but I see several serious problems, ranging from loss of creativity to absolute moral depravity, Issues must be handled, not ignored.

Um... the issues with the media involve corporate owned news media outlets feigning objectivity. A commercial never pretends to be anything BUT that(unless it's paid for by the Bush administration of course). you might want to rethink what you see as 'serious' problems.

c-g

05-27-2005, 05:38 PM

Unfortunately, nobody talks about the burger, everyone talks about the girl. Or maybe the car. But not about the burger.

I don't normally find myself talking to a coworker or friends "hey did you hear about that great new burger they have over at ____?". But if someone is going to talk about this commercial they WILL mention what company it was for. Even if it is to talk abouit Paris in it. The same thing goes with that creepy ass Burger King. Do you really feel that seeing that Horror movie reject makes people want to go get a Whopper? No it makes them want to put bars on the windows and get a shotgun for when he shows up in their yard.

leigh

05-27-2005, 08:34 PM

Why does the entertainment industry like to wade in such shallow waters?

Actually, the question you should be asking is: why do people actually admire/adore characters like Paris Hilton? The entertainment industry is simply capitalising on a trend that sells. Simple as that.

jscheel

05-27-2005, 10:00 PM

I'm not sure I'm following you malcomvexxed. Could you elaborate a little, please? :curious:

BigSky

05-28-2005, 12:51 AM

Well, I agree with "a Paris Hilton commercial paid for by a burger company.." And I agree with the "if you just let it slide, then we'll be drones following the scent of Bush lies and corporate hogwash, nodding yea, yea, yea.."
So in service to doing something:

http://www.adbusters.org/home/

And

http://www.disinfo.com/site/

jscheel

05-28-2005, 02:41 AM

Barring entering into a political debate and oversimplifying political lines, it amazes me how people love to drag President Bush into anything and everything. If you think the Republican party is the sole proponent of corporate hogwash, then you are seriously mistaken. If you look at the numbers, the Democratic party is where the real money is, they merely "stand" for the lower guys on principle.

Either way, the ad agency's intentions could be one of two things: pure money (Paris Hilton is "popular"), or pure lust (horny artists wanting to film a 3/4's naked woman). Or, more likely, a combination of the two.

Leigh, very good point. Society and the media are like an oroborus. Society treads shallow water, so the media goes in, then society sees the media and treads to even shallower, over and over again.

michaeljr

05-28-2005, 03:47 AM

if she wasn't a rich twit, she'd make the perfect girl next door.

Paris is just the 21st century's Monroe.

but what the heck does that commercial have to do with that sandwich? should have had chubby Nichol selling that burger.....

on a side note

why do people blam presidents? why not blame the millions of people who voted for him, the the congress men and women that support them, you could blame those people to. oh, maybe for Bush, why not blame those crazy mass murdering pyschopaths who kill everyone including themselves? they could be partially to blame in all what is going wrong in the world.

-Vormav-

05-28-2005, 04:12 AM

Actually, the question you should be asking is: why do people actually admire/adore characters like Paris Hilton? The entertainment industry is simply capitalising on a trend that sells. Simple as that.

but I'm a single geek so I don't even know what shelf "my" book is even on right now :( my life sucks..... back to the 3dsMAX the only mistress that loves me, until it crashes and eats my files... son of a ......

fwtep

05-28-2005, 05:16 AM

Paris is just the 21st century's Monroe.Monroe was very talented though.

Fred

PS: I can't wait until Bush's term is over; the world was PERFECT before he came into office.

jscheel

05-28-2005, 05:40 AM

Monroe was very talented though.

Ha! I love her performance is "Some Like it Hot" (snigger, snigger).

michaeljr

05-28-2005, 07:15 AM

ya, tell me about it

oh wait, Happy Birthday Mr. President......... (glug glug glug) but these days you don't have to be talented much anymore. some of the actors these days are nothing compared to classic actors like Cary Grant, John Wayne, Audrey Hepburn (there was a hottie of classiness)

oh, and ya, it will be great after Bush is out. all our troops can come home and protect us here by guarding the borders, then all the crazies take over the middle east while we sit back as pasifist drinking our double capochinos and listing to our MP3s, cause no one is bothing us, for 20 years until one day a crazy's son of a son brings us a nuke in a VW bug because we killed his father's father's father 20 years ago and he never forgot.

wait we already did that a few times. WWI and WW2. sat on our butts until someone came over and said, hay, you wussies, we want a fight. oh and dangit, look at that, forgot all about 9-11, oh and all those soilders and american's killed every year overseas for the past 50 years. I guess if american's don't die in america, they don't count.

Joe Burnham

05-28-2005, 10:52 AM

Oh my GOD. Drop this political bullshit.

This thread is about a woman in a burger commercial. I'm surprised you decided to jump to the political edge rather than jump into the music industry. But hey, this commercial is the next big thing to complain about. How society is degenerating into a shallow mass of media drones thirsting for the next naked woman. What's sad is how you blow it up into an such an important aspect of your life. The fact is, we have more important things to worry about. Like life. Taking care of our families, working, and if you're not working, finding work. Contrary to what you believe, this commercial is NOT important enough to concern yourself with. If you do, you have seriously deranged priorities. And no, I'm not blind. I compare this crap - this overload of unecessary information that essentially confuses society, with driving in bumper-to-bumper traffic only to find out that everyone's lives are held up because people NEED to involve themselves in someone else's flat tire on the side of the road. It's pathetic, actually.

malcolmvexxed

05-28-2005, 10:53 AM

Paris is just the 21st century's Monroe.

these days you don't have to be talented much anymore. some of the actors these days are nothing compared to classic actors like Cary Grant, John Wayne, Audrey Hepburn (there was a hottie of classiness)

you can't compare the worst of one group to the best of another to make your point. there are a lot of amazing actors and hilton is not really one you'd compare to those old actors (and i think john wayne was sort of a hack, but whatever.) anyway. i think if you condense the last three posts you made into one you'd be able to make a little more sense.

Knotter8

05-28-2005, 02:13 PM

I finally saw the uncensored commercial.

All I know about Paris Hilton, is that she's the daughter of that Hilton hotel guy and that she's friggin' rich. (and i heard some rumours about sex videos or sumthin')

Imo she looks very hot and she's got every right to star in a sexy way in a commercial.

My opinion about the commercial itself is a completely different one though. I think it sux for these reasons :

- the (ahhum) music. I just HATE that tune !
- the fact that it's about HAMBURGERS and that we actually see her eating one !
I dunno. Seeing Paris chum on that hamburger while acting sexy looks too raunchy.
I think it would have been a whole lot better to look at if she would advertise some
cool sports or soda drink. Paris Hilton & hamburger combo = wrong.

For the rest I have zero problems with Paris Hilton and there are alot worse commercials out there.

jscheel

05-28-2005, 04:18 PM

Ok, lets disregard the political debate, I believe we both know our general sides (btw, I agree 100% with you Michaeljr).

Joe, you just became the very crux of the problem. "Let everybody do what they want. Just leave people alone. Worry about yourself, not other problems." Etc, etc, etc. Social isolationism, developed once in the 20's, was cast off in the 40's with the peak of WWII. Then, after several years, it resurfaced in the 60's, once again to be cast off in the late 80's - early 90's. However, since then, it has been a constant battle between the two. I am of course speaking from an American point of view, because I am American and I live in the USA. When I lived in Germany, it was entirely different, but that is another point entirely. Anyways, social isolationism has always be pushed by those who wish to act outside of well-developed social mores, so that they do not have to feel threatened because of their abberation from the norm. They push for remote acceptance, rather than responsible control. That is why a person can make a 60 sec. softcore pornography commerical, and say that we should just get over it and not let it bother our lives. If you want to bring your personal life into this, then imagine your children watching this commercial. You can't say anything, because we should accept it and get over it. Life does not work this way.

Ryan-B

05-28-2005, 05:48 PM

I think jscheel's signature ("You can either be intelligent, honest, or a liberal. Or you can be any two, but not all three.") sums up his real agenda. Do yourself a favour and add him to your ignore list.

faridz7

05-28-2005, 06:01 PM

the way i see it..as lane_daughtry said, sex sells. come on, trashy as it may be, if Paris Hilton were near any one of you and wanted to date you or something, im pretty sure you guys would wanna get your freak on with her lol. so in my opinion, enough with the its a trashy commercial bla bla bla, its just meant to sell the product, Paris is the current IT girl at the moment..and come on, the ad's hot..shes hot, the burger's mos def hot..a hot girl, eating a burger, washing a car in that skimpy clothing..rates high up on my fantasy list. just my thought :)

jscheel

05-28-2005, 07:09 PM

I think jscheel's signature ("You can either be intelligent, honest, or a liberal. Or you can be any two, but not all three.") sums up his real agenda. Do yourself a favour and add him to your ignore list.

Apparently, I'm not entitled to my opinion. However, this discussion is not centered around liberalism vs. conservatism (in fact, I've seen the same quote said about conservatives). Anyways, this discussion deals with the media and society. If you would take three seconds to read the previous posts, you would see that. However, I see that you are from Canada, a country who has upheld a long tradition of social isolation and acceptance. Perhaps you merely feel threatened by someone who does not think in the same manner.

Regardless, I will alter my signature to include both sides, to keep things neutral.

Blitz55

05-30-2005, 01:11 AM

I couldnt help it
But out of curiosity I watched the BEHIND THE SCEENS WITH PARIS
And I couldnt help but laugh at the fact that all it was, was 3 mins of shots from the commercial and occasionaly her saying "its hot" a few short times

That just shows how interesting she can be when she opens her mouth to speak. Not Verry.

Oh
And why go with a music video theam when she has nothing to do with music videos

Headless

05-30-2005, 01:54 AM

Three pages of posts (and counting), about a burger advert - when was the last time your average McDonalds ad got that kind of attention.

Seems to me like the ad agency (and Paris of course), did their job and then some.

Blitz55

05-30-2005, 02:14 AM

No
If they did their job we would be buying their burgers
Sounds like no one wants to because of the ad
So really...They should all be fired for making a commercial that makes people hate them. ;)

michaeljr

05-30-2005, 03:29 AM

I can't believe this is the company that owns Hardees out here in the midwest.

wow... I bet that commercial isn't playing down south...

jscheel

05-30-2005, 05:36 AM

I live in the South (my address says I live in Cottontown, TN). I have yet to see the commercial on tv, but I don't watch much tv anyways. I try to stick mainly to film.

malcolmvexxed

05-30-2005, 06:03 AM

I think jscheel's signature ("You can either be intelligent, honest, or a liberal. Or you can be any two, but not all three.") sums up his real agenda. Do yourself a favour and add him to your ignore list. why is it so important to you that you dictate other people's reactions to his posts/signature? What makes you so needy to control other people? It makes you very similar to him in principle.

They push for remote acceptance, rather than responsible control. That is why a person can make a 60 sec. softcore pornography commerical, and say that we should just get over it and not let it bother our lives. If you want to bring your personal life into this, then imagine your children watching this commercial. You can't say anything, because we should accept it and get over it. Life does not work this way.

this is completely wrong on several points. First like many who subscribe to partisan politics you're establishing 'morals' as a universal, while ignoring both context and priority. When this country was at its most conservative sexually, during the time when religion and govt. were so closely tied together at its founding, slavery existed and women were treated as property. The idea that our society's view of sex and sexual behavior in some way ties directly to it's overall quality of life for citizens or regulates how well children are able to be raised is not only moronic, but flies in the face of everything in our history. There is no great downfall of morality brought on by any of this and there never will be. The reason people aren't worried enough about it to satisfy people like you is not because we "push for remote acceptance" but because some of us think the prison industrial complex, a war some of us don't agree with, and other life and death matters are far more important. But hey if you think this is tragic for kids to watch and not the revelation on the news that information used to justify an invasion was incorrect, it's you who needs to turn your tv off completely.

What is annoying and horrible to me is the message young girls are sent from the media "idolizing" girls like Paris Hilton. Empty heads and rail thin physiques are what's "hot."

Hilarious because you won't be thin eating those burgers.

Jeffrey Baker,
Dancing Bear Graphics, Inc.

jscheel

05-30-2005, 04:04 PM

malcolmvexxed, I understand your view, although I do not agree with it. You use slavery, as opposed to sexual promiscuity as an example to show that morals must me taken in context and priority; however, the American form of slavery was evetually abolished because of its moral depravity. All throughout the history of man, the underlying basis of morality has not changed. People's view of morality, and their actions based on those views, change over time (such as America and slavery). Society is in a constant state of self-correction, but it does tha through the means of individuals gathering together to take action. In the South, slavery was not seen as an important issue until a few people realized what was truly happening to the slaves. Then the issue exploded into what we are taught in the 1st grade. This is the same with sexuality. Each time America has swayed towards openess and acceptance of "deviant" sexuality, small voices were raised first. Then those small voices got together and made a change. Why? Not because sexuality is more wrong that slavery, for example, but because it in itself is a problem. It is like a mosquito, I don't care what type of mosquito is biting me, I'm still going to swat it, because, if enough mosquitoes bite me, I will be in bad shape.

mummey

05-30-2005, 04:52 PM

Why does the entertainment industry like to wade in such shallow waters?

Why?

1. She's a pop culture icon right now.
2. Sex sells. (In this case almost literally.)
3. People are talking about it.
4. The people who will buy this food would be embarrassed and disgusted if they saw people like themselves in these commercials. Imagine if McDonald's ever started putting ACTUAL customers in their commercials. Would it make you want to go buy a burger if you saw this? http://www.brianbehrend.com/archives/images/fatkids.jpg

or how about a little honesty in commercials? ;) http://www.sixsite.com/crap/MCDONALDS.JPG

JakeJK

05-30-2005, 05:23 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that it's a funny commercial? :)..

It is ironi when it's best! At least political :thumbsup:

fwtep

05-30-2005, 08:12 PM

There are two types of advertising: The kind that tries to convince you to buy a product, and the type that is more for publicizing the company. For example: Do you think that having the McDonalds logo on a race car is supposed to make you want a burger or convince you that they're better than other burgers? Is seeing a Met Life ad on the side boards of a hockey rink supposed to make you run out and order life insurance? No, obviously not. Those ads are there to publicize the companies.

The Hilton ad is like that. The point isn't to sell burgers, it's to sell the company-- to get the company into people's lives. They've gotten more publicity out of this ad than through any other ad they've had. And guess what? It'll sell burgers. People will be driving around and see a Carl's Jr. and (if they're hungry) they'll stop in.

Starting this thread helps Carl's Jr. even more. Jscheel, I'm sure Carl's Jr. is very proud and happy for all the help you've given them.

Fred

fabionguzman

05-30-2005, 08:13 PM

i live on the west coast and the video is not as bad as the web verison, they show alot less of paris doing the over the top sexy poses and the music is different, when i see it i really don't look at the food but i never turn it off when it comes on, so i think they did their job. A carl's Jr is two blocks form me and i've never had a burger there since i've seen this, not because of the video but because it don't make me want one

michaeljr

05-30-2005, 10:46 PM

ya, tell me about it, wonder what the calorie amount is in one of those things? probably Paris's daily amount. I don't think is nothing wrong with being thin is there? I mean I'm about 6 foot tall and about 150 pounds, been like that for 15 since high school, while my poor friends, all the same age are all near 180 to 200 with big guts and big butts....

eat a few of those burgers a week though, I would probably catch right up... :)

Headless

05-30-2005, 11:23 PM

Starting this thread helps Carl's Jr. even more. Jscheel, I'm sure Carl's Jr. is very proud and happy for all the help you've given them.
Exactly my point from my original post.

jscheel

05-31-2005, 12:08 AM

I believe that the traditional idea of any publicity is good publicity is thankfully dying out. I still remember my T.V. production professor, she would purposely not purchase certain products if she didn't like the commercial. Of couse, she is 43 and still single. :shrug:

andrewmartin

05-31-2005, 12:36 AM

Thank you Iceblaster!

The whole thing reeks of irony and is actually quite clever.

thebrianproject

05-31-2005, 02:36 AM

I don't see how you can't like this commercial. I wish that carls jr or any of the fast food franchises would carry hotdogs. They have terryaki chicken at jack in the box but no hotdog. What the hell?

Joe Burnham

05-31-2005, 06:23 AM

Last I checked, teriyaki chicken is pretty far removed from hot-dogs.

guerillo

05-31-2005, 10:36 AM

in my opinion, this is nothing but another paris hilton show, and i'm kind of fed up of her at the moment. i'm pretty sure these burger boys wanted to provoke such reactions. even bad publicity is good publicity. at least i've never heard of carl's before.

but what really makes me laugh is the way people get upset by it; i mean hey, its just a commercial and there's nothing but a bit of teasing. here in austria, when you see ad's of "palmers", "wolford" etc. (underwear manufacturers), you get to see far more sexual stuff, naked breasts and butts, etc. etc. and no one cares about that. what exactly is so mean or bad or disgusting when looking at nice photographs of beautiful girls? its nothing to be ashamed of.

JMcWilliams

05-31-2005, 01:27 PM

Interesting how people seem to get more upset over something mildly sexual than any amount of violence we see everyday.

mummey

05-31-2005, 02:39 PM

I believe that the traditional idea of any publicity is good publicity is thankfully dying out.

Well, that makes one of us... :shrug:

paulrus

05-31-2005, 02:57 PM

This thread is a perfect example of why more and more professionals leave this site daily.

malcolmvexxed

05-31-2005, 03:38 PM

malcolmvexxed, I understand your view, although I do not agree with it. You use slavery, as opposed to sexual promiscuity as an example to show that morals must me taken in context and priority; however, the American form of slavery was evetually abolished because of its moral depravity. actually it was abolished because lincoln needed to gain an advantage over the south and sewing discontent in their citizens/way of life was his best way to do that. It's been firmly established by historians that it was not a moral decision on his part, and the post reconstruction era south was just as bad as slavery.

All throughout the history of man, the underlying basis of morality has not changed. there is no such thing as a basic or universal morality. your foundation is flawed. People's view of morality, and their actions based on those views, change over time (such as America and slavery). That's what morality IS. morality is a societal conceit based on viewpoints and actions. It's not Mt. Everest with everybody trying to climb it in turns.

In the South, slavery was not seen as an important issue until a few people realized what was truly happening to the slaves. Then the issue exploded into what we are taught in the 1st grade. I think your understanding of slavery and the southern mentality of state control vs. federal control and the basis of the old republican party vs. the southern democrats who eventually became the dixie crats and served as the foundation for the KKK is lacking or non-existent.

This is the same with sexuality. Each time America has swayed towards openess and acceptance of "deviant" sexuality, small voices were raised first.

I think i understand the issue. I actually just wrote a thesis paper for my political science class which proved that sexuality is not a basis for civil rights. these issues of deviant sexualities from the norm have nothing to do with exposed skin in a commercial. unfortunately, to restate the point, people with partisan beliefs tend to squeeze issues to fit into the topics that in reality are completely unrelated.

sexuality is more wrong that slavery, for example, but because it in itself is a problem. sexuality is a problem ... how exactly?it's amazing to me that offends people so much in america. at some point you have to let go of the puritan 'nudity' is evil mentality. Im' especially amazed when i hear this from artist's who i've always expected to have taken life drawing classes and be less stodgy about this sort of thing.

paulrus

05-31-2005, 04:24 PM

there is no such thing as a basic or universal morality. your foundation is flawed. That's what morality IS. morality is a societal conceit based on viewpoints and actions.

Wow we're straying way off topic at this point. That is one of the most nonsensical statements I've ever read.

So there are no moral absolutes at all, right? Only what "society" determines is acceptable. So there truly is no limit to the extremes of behavior as long as any particular "society" deems it acceptable. By your logic then, if my social group decides that it's morally correct to rape children, you'd have absolutely no authority to do anything about it.

C.S. Lewis observes:
Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if …there is no such thing as Right and Wrong…what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one?

From Douglas Groothuis:

Relativism also leads to absurd conclusions which undermine its credibility. If there is no true moral law that applies transculturally, then there is no basis for one culture to condemn actions in another. Surely any morally sane person must ethically condemn Nazi atrocities as evil and praise the heroes who resisted the Reich by saving Jews from extermination. But relativism cannot permit such judgments. The morality of everything is relative — even genocide.

What's that sound? It's the sound of more and more professionals leaving this site.....

JMcWilliams

05-31-2005, 04:30 PM

What's that sound? It's the sound of more and more professionals leaving this site.....

Why? cause they clicked on the link to paris hilton commercials? :D

mummey

05-31-2005, 05:25 PM

What's that sound? It's the sound of more and more professionals leaving this site.....

Well that was a very arrogent and dubious assumption if I've ever heard one on this site. If you do not wish to encourage this discussion any further, you do not have to participate in it. However, since it appears your true intention is to belittle those who have chosen to participate in this discussion, I must ask that you please make better use of your time elseware.

You DO have better things to do than troll on a CGTalk thread? Don't you!?!

-n

paulrus

05-31-2005, 07:00 PM

Sorry mummey, but the daily attacks on Americans, Christians, conservatives, and others on this site is getting to be out of control. Why does one person have the right to start bashing Bush in the middle of a discussion on a crappy Paris Hilton commercial? Why does this site stand for it? It's the non-stop non-sequitur political postings that are dragging this site down. It seems to me that this section of the site is called "Screenwriting, Storyboarding and Concept Creation" so how does any anti-Bush statements fit that category unless it's the discussion of the creation of an anti-Bush TV ad? And then if you ARE going to allow these non-sequitur statements to be made, then why can I not respond to such a softball statement as "there is no such thing as a basic or universal morality"?

I am not making an assumption on the professionals leaving here, I'm stating an opinion based on events witnessed over the past year or two.

But you are right. I do have other things to do, though the accusation of trolling should hardly be lobbed in my direction. Perhaps you only read the end of the thread and didn't catch some of what was written towards the middle when the thread swerved into a political rant.

fwtep

05-31-2005, 07:51 PM

So there are no moral absolutes at all, right? Only what "society" determines is acceptable. So there truly is no limit to the extremes of behavior as long as any particular "society" deems it acceptable. By your logic then, if my social group decides that it's morally correct to rape children, you'd have absolutely no authority to do anything about it.Correct. There are no moral absolutes. There are lots of things that societies around the world do that other societies think are inhuman. Here's a quick example: Ask most people in the US if it's morally wrong for an adult (over 18) to have sex with a 14 year old and the answer will be, "yes, that's morally wrong, evil and disgusting." Yet the age of consent in many countries is 14 (such as China, Hungary, Italy-- in Mexico and Chile it's 12).

Fred

paulrus

05-31-2005, 08:28 PM

Correct. There are no moral absolutes.
Fred

So if the age of 14 for sex is ok, why not 7? Why not 4? Why not hang out in the hospital looking for newborns? Where do YOU draw the line? And if you DO draw a line, then you are contradicting your own statement of no moral absolutes.

By your statement Hitler was morally correct for the holocaust because from his viewpoint he was doing what he believed was right. He had the German society on his side and because of that millions died. Are you prepared to state that Hitler was morally right for what he did? And if not, how can you do that without contradicting yourself? Who are you to decide what is morally wrong, even when it applies to Hitler?

Any rapist, murderer, child molester, thief, and so on are all truly innocent of any "crimes" because in your society we cannot judge anyone because we cannot impose our "morals" on anyone else.

I sincerely hope you never complain about anyone ever expressing any opinion at all in any situation ever again, because after all you can't impose YOUR moral standards on anyone else if you are going to live by what you've written. If someone steals your car, so be it - their morals dictated that stealing was ok and you certainly can't judge them for that. If someone beats the living crap out of you, you'd better not call the police because you'd be imposing your morals on them. If someone murders your children, keep your mouth shut, because they've just excercised their morals on your family.

In essence, to write what you've written you must reject these statements of moral judgement outright:

Murdering people is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.
Helping the homeless is right.
Giving food to the hungry is good.

These are absolute moral judgements and have no place in the world you describe.

malcolmvexxed

05-31-2005, 08:56 PM

Wow we're straying way off topic at this point. That is one of the most nonsensical statements I've ever read. That's because your reading comprehension is horrid.

So there are no moral absolutes at all, right? Only what "society" determines is acceptable. there are no moral absolutes to the extent that not everyone agrees with or has the same code of ethics. all we have are trends and patterns of societal behavior. otherwise no one would ever be able to enact change.

So there truly is no limit to the extremes of behavior as long as any particular "society" deems it acceptable. By your logic then, if my social group decides that it's morally correct to rape children, you'd have absolutely no authority to do anything about it. actually this is a terrible extrapulation from what i've said. If i use slavery as proof that there are no moral absolutes while painting it as an obvious wrongdoing by my standards, then the point is that 'morals' are a changing societal conceit. if you truly identify with the 'nation' belief then you see yourself as a member of your nation and judge yourself notonly individually but by how you represent your nation and vice versa.

From Douglas Groothuis:

Relativism also leads to absurd conclusions which undermine its credibility. If there is no true moral law that applies transculturally, then there is no basis for one culture to condemn actions in another. Surely any morally sane person must ethically condemn Nazi atrocities as evil and praise the heroes who resisted the Reich by saving Jews from extermination. But relativism cannot permit such judgments. The morality of everything is relative — even genocide. nope I reserve the right to judge all i want but not to force people to believe what I do. Otherwise i would believe that the only solution was a despotic government where a person could enforce these universal morals you speak of which my varying social groups may and may not agree with. what's genuinely absurd is people who can only see the world in extremes of atrocities or charities.

What's that sound? It's the sound of more and more professionals leaving this site.....yeah the forum was really jumping before this topic. i hope we didn't scare spielberg away. i participate in other topics in this and the other film making forum. it's not like you can't participate in one of the many 'on topic' posts in this board. there's a great couple of screenwriting examples to review from creators. i'll give you the links if you want encouragement that the site serves a purpose.

JMcWilliams

05-31-2005, 09:01 PM

So if the age of 14 for sex is ok, why not 7? Why not 4? Why not hang out in the hospital looking for newborns? Where do YOU draw the line? And if you DO draw a line, then you are contradicting your own statement of no moral absolutes.

By your statement Hitler was morally correct for the holocaust because from his viewpoint he was doing what he believed was right. He had the German society on his side and because of that millions died. Are you prepared to state that Hitler was morally right for what he did? And if not, how can you do that without contradicting yourself? Who are you to decide what is morally wrong, even when it applies to Hitler?

Any rapist, murderer, child molester, thief, and so on are all truly innocent of any "crimes" because in your society we cannot judge anyone because we cannot impose our "morals" on anyone else.

I sincerely hope you never complain about anyone ever expressing any opinion at all in any situation ever again, because after all you can't impose YOUR moral standards on anyone else if you are going to live by what you've written. If someone steals your car, so be it - their morals dictated that stealing was ok and you certainly can't judge them for that. If someone beats the living crap out of you, you'd better not call the police because you'd be imposing your morals on them. If someone murders your children, keep your mouth shut, because they've just excercised their morals on your family.

In essence, to write what you've written you must reject these statements of moral judgement outright:

Murdering people is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.
Helping the homeless is right.
Giving food to the hungry is good.

These are absolute moral judgements and have no place in the world you describe.

You are taking what he means the wrong way. Although different countries certainly do share many values... often the opinion of what is right, and what it wrong, is very much dependant on point of view.

WE may all agree that Hitler was mad on this site. But remember that he thought what he was doing was right. 'Evil' people are not cardboard cutouts from movies cackling insanly. They are people who feel totally justified in doing whatever they do, from thier perspective they are the good guys. Some people didn't and still don't consider him a bad guy, some agree with him (hence neo-nazi's, etc).

Do you think the suicide bombers think they are doing wrong? No. they think they are right! to some they are freedom fighters. :eek:

Thats point of view. Remember that in some ancient cultures, sacrificing children to the gods was common place. Or how about canibalism! Morals are often a construct of your society. That does not mean we cannot say "I think you are wrong!". :D

Ok, giving food to the hungry... a noble cause for sure, but what happens if a bunch of rich men don't want to give thier money? Do we force them to share? Some people think the government should.

malcolmvexxed

05-31-2005, 09:05 PM

I am not making an assumption on the professionals leaving here, I'm stating an opinion based on events witnessed over the past year or two.

here's a good on topic thread. you might wanna jump in and help us review the script he's written. there are several interesting posts.

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=236519

malcolmvexxed

05-31-2005, 09:09 PM

You are taking what he means the wrong way. Although different countries certainly do share many values... often the opinion of what is right, and what it wrong, is very much dependant on point of view.

thank you so much for explaining it more simply. moral absolutes don't exist ONLY because of the billions of people that live and don't agree. period.

And re: terrorism vs. freedom fighters, look up info on the Sons of Liberty fighting for american independence from england and their tactics. History is pretty amazing.

JMcWilliams

05-31-2005, 09:30 PM

thank you so much for explaining it more simply. moral absolutes don't exist ONLY because of the billions of people that live and don't agree. period.

You are welcome :D

And re: terrorism vs. freedom fighters, look up info on the Sons of Liberty fighting for american independence from england and their tactics. History is pretty amazing.

Yes, thats right. To the redcoats, the revolutionaries were a bunch of traitor terrorists! ... and George washington loved talking about liberty, yet he owned slaves himself! Point of view in action :D

fwtep

05-31-2005, 10:27 PM

So if the age of 14 for sex is ok, why not 7? Why not 4? Why not hang out in the hospital looking for newborns? Where do YOU draw the line? And if you DO draw a line, then you are contradicting your own statement of no moral absolutes.No I'm not, I'm living up to my point, which is that there are NO moral absolutes. To you, under 16 might be morally wrong, to me it might 18, to someone else 12, to someone else 20. That means there is no absolute. Through evolution (or God, if you want), boys and girls become interested in each other at the time when they're both capable of reproducing. But self-styled moralists have decided that nature (or even God) screwed up, and it's morally wrong to reproduce below a certain arbitrary age.

Morals are flexible, not absolute. That's why, for example, the minimum working age has risen over the years, or why slavery comes in and out of fashion.

By your statement Hitler was morally correct for the holocaust because from his viewpoint he was doing what he believed was right. He had the German society on his side and because of that millions died. Are you prepared to state that Hitler was morally right for what he did? And if not, how can you do that without contradicting yourself? Who are you to decide what is morally wrong, even when it applies to Hitler?Again you are proving my point. To many people in Nazi Germany, what they were doing was morally right. Morality is quite obviously in the eye of the beholder. And why can't I decide "what's morally right when it comes to Hitler"-- you sure are. (By the way, MY morals says he was wrong, but other people's says he was right.)

Any rapist, murderer, child molester, thief, and so on are all truly innocent of any "crimes" because in your society we cannot judge anyone because we cannot impose our "morals" on anyone else.I'm not even going to bother with a real reply to this because that has nothing to do with what I said.

I sincerely hope you never complain about anyone ever expressing any opinion at all in any situation ever again, because after all you can't impose YOUR moral standards on anyone else if you are going to live by what you've written. If someone steals your car, so be it - their morals dictated that stealing was ok and you certainly can't judge them for that. If someone beats the living crap out of you, you'd better not call the police because you'd be imposing your morals on them. If someone murders your children, keep your mouth shut, because they've just excercised their morals on your family.Again, get back to me when you can comprehend what I was saying. One thing I will say is that the morals of someone who steals my car are beside the point. I wouldn't be calling the police because I dislike their morals. They're welcome to their morals but not my car. :)

In essence, to write what you've written you must reject these statements of moral judgement outright:

Murdering people is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.
Helping the homeless is right.
Giving food to the hungry is good.

These are absolute moral judgements and have no place in the world you describe.I'm saying that I can picture societies where they would reject those, or at least would reject them under various circumstances. At one time or another there *have* been societies that rejected one more of those. Morals are man-made. That means they are relative, not absolute. Sorry if that crushes your world-- that's not my intention-- but it happens to be true.

The person who started this thread is another example of how morals are not absolute. He thinks the Hilton commercial is morally wrong, because it involves sex. Further, he thinks that his morals in this are correct and absolute (in other words, not just HIS morals, but THE morals, or the RIGHT morals). But virtually everyone else her has no problem with it (at least on those grounds).

Fred

Fred

jscheel

06-01-2005, 06:17 AM

I love being refered to as "that person". It really makes me feel like people care. Anyways, malcom, one thing I would like to address, the state vs. federal issue was not brought into slavery until dissent arose around the treatment of slaves.

Secondly, I find it interesting that the absolute absence of a moral standard only reaches as far as you and fwtep want it to. By denying paulrus's statement that you must take your view to its logical conclusion, you have hurt your own argument. You must accept your own view before you can declare it the truth.

Third, just because a person has a different point of view about something does mean that the moral standard has changed. For example, using the freedom fighter vs. terrorist argument: let's replace the term freedom fighter with the word red, and let's replace the term terrorist with the word blue. Now, if I believe that the sky is red, and you believe that it is blue, does that mean that the sky is either both or neither? No, of course not. The sky is blue, regardless of what we think.

Finally, on a lighter note: I was browsing foxnews.com (the Fox News Channel's website) earlier. On the front page, under the blurb about Deep Throat finally being identified, is a clip about Paris Hilton. Apparently she is engaged to Greek shipping heir Paris Latsis. Go figure she would choose someone with the same name as herself.

malcolmvexxed

06-01-2005, 07:29 AM

Anyways, malcom, one thing I would like to address, the state vs. federal issue was not brought into slavery until dissent arose around the treatment of slaves.

Dissent around the issue of slaves existed in America since the Quakers wrote objections to it in the late 1600's. 'Dissent' existed then far before the first political party was even formed. the two issues have unique histories, but slavery was brought INTO the federal vs. state power debate.

Jefferson formed the Democrat-Republican party to fight against the dominance of the federal government and re-establish more state based power in the late 1700's. Because of this stance Jefferson's concerns automatically gave his political party foundation in the south which was enamored with his party's somewhat consensus contention that states should be able to override federal law. Until FDR and Teddy Roosevelt switched the behaviors of the parties around the south remained entrenched as Democrat supporters after they dropped the 'republican' from their party name which was adopted by the descendents of the 'federalists' Jefferson was opposing. The louisiana purchase wasn't even made till what, early 1800's? So America was more concerned with spreading West than the morality of slavery decades into the 'state vs. federal' issue. One of the issues as PART of the state vs. federal issue was slavery. State vs. Federal control was absolutely brought into slavery before the moral dissent was a significant central issue. Lincoln's quotes seem to confirm that but if you force me i will post them. Recall please lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform and still didn't even win the popular vote - despite running against a democrat (again the pro slavery party). So the idea thatmorality was in favor of ending slavery and caused the end of it is a little naive.

Please read more books on the topic. Your understanding is apparently lackin as you've made several historically incorrect statements .

You must accept your own view before you can declare it the truth.

Since we love empirical data, if you and i have opposing moral viewpoints for example on 10/10 issues raised, what is the moral absolute? We each have moral standards, but in a 1 on 1 situation such as that what would the moral absolute be?

Killing is wrong. America dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima that killed thousands on thousands of people. Their qualification to your 'killing is always wrong' conceit is that in 'context' it was the correct thing to do. There is no moral absolute. Arguments can be made for both sides. And even if they couldn't , multiple perspectives EXIST which proves there were no absolutes.

If this doesn't explain the concept I'll just give up.

Third, just because a person has a different point of view about something does mean that the moral standard has changed. For example, using the freedom fighter vs. terrorist argument: let's replace the term freedom fighter with the word red, and let's replace the term terrorist with the word blue. Now, if I believe that the sky is red, and you believe that it is blue, does that mean that the sky is either both or neither? No, of course not. The sky is blue, regardless of what we think.
So do you feel the sons of liberty were terrorists? the boston tea party? Dissention from England?

It was the Boston Committee of Correspondence that directed the Boston Tea Party action of December 16, 1773.1 Upset with the lack of redress concerning the new tax on tea established by the British government for importation of tea to Boston, a small band of the Boston Committee of Correspondence members (approximately fifty in number) lead by Samuel Adams, proceeded to empty three ships worth and 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor in protest.2

Was this an early terrorist action or a patriotic action. Surely, the answer lies with perspective. If you were a British official, this action was treasonous and punishable by death. If you were an American colonial citizen, this event would be seen as a glorious action of the freedom fighters worthy of praise, pride, and acclaim.

http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

actually the sky is 'red' at sunset ocassionally, and 'purple'. Different 'colors' at dawn. Where you are on earth when we talk about it affects how it looks cause of um... this axis thing. It's even black from space. It's based on atmosphere conditions and 'the perspective' you look at it from. (there's that word again) your analogy not only was unnecessary but served to prove your point wrong. but then if you think that the sky is always 'blue' and always has been 'blue' no matter what... then you don't understand the irony of the point you just tried to make and this is... again a waste of time. My assumption is that at some point you will put down your support of an argument you can't seem to make very well. If you can't I'll drop it.

Finally, on a lighter note: I was browsing foxnews.com . you're right 'fox news' is hilarious.

JMcWilliams

06-01-2005, 08:54 AM

Third, just because a person has a different point of view about something does mean that the moral standard has changed. For example, using the freedom fighter vs. terrorist argument: let's replace the term freedom fighter with the word red, and let's replace the term terrorist with the word blue. Now, if I believe that the sky is red, and you believe that it is blue, does that mean that the sky is either both or neither? No, of course not. The sky is blue, regardless of what we think.
.
You are comparing a physical truth with morals, which is more of an abstract. (though as Stephen said, even the sky colour depends on perspective). For all we know, the red that you see, is what I see as blue?

Morals are, i think, more comparable to something like time in the sense that it is a system that dictates so much about our lives but is not consistant all over the world and it is not a 'universal law of the universe'. The time to you is different from where I am and the whole system of time we use is human constructed. Time even passes at different rates depending on how fast you travel.

We create systems such as calendars and clocks in order to describe or make comprehensible the universe, at least from our perception of it at that particular time. The universe does not inherit our systems or rules, in fact our systems are not always precise… instead we try and describe the universe as best we can with our own interpretations. Everything you see with your eyes is an interpretation.

Your brain tricks you all the time. Look at those patterns that we can stare at and see bizarre optical illusions. Or how about at christmas, do you suddenly get that magical feeling as a kid because there is higher concentration of pixie dust in the atmosphere?

fwtep

06-01-2005, 11:20 PM

Now, if I believe that the sky is red, and you believe that it is blue, does that mean that the sky is either both or neither? No, of course not. The sky is blue, regardless of what we think.Ignoring for the moment what the color of the sky actually is, becuase I understand how you mean it here, the color of the sky can be proven scientifically (such as by measuring wavelengths). How do you propose we scientifically prove a moral???

Morals are opinions, that's all they are. And no matter how many people have the same moral-- even if it's everyone in the world-- that doesn't make it an absolute, because it can change over time, plus, at any point someone might be born who disagrees, or someone might change their mind. But SCIENCE is not like that-- if you drop something it falls to the ground whether you believe in gravity or not.

Fred

CGTalk Moderation

06-01-2005, 11:20 PM

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.